Disparagement in Ayurvedic Product Advertising
Facts: Dabur India Limited, a household name in the field of Ayurveda since 1884, approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection against what it termed as a false, malicious, and disparaging advertising campaign launched by Patanjali Ayurved Limited and its associate company, Patanjali Foods Limited. Dabur contended that Patanjali had issued an advertisement for its product “Patanjali Special Chyawanprash” that described other Chyawanprash available in the market—including Dabur’s—as “Dhoka” (deception). The advertisement showed a mother feeding her child Chyawanprash, followed by the voice-over “Chalo Dhoka Khao,” and featured Baba Ramdev, who declared that “most consumers are being deceived in the name of Chyawanprash.”
Dabur claimed that the said advertisement directly insulted and defamed the entire class of Chyawanprash manufacturers, creating a false impression that all other brands—including Dabur’s—were fake, inferior, and deceptive. Dabur, being the market leader with over 61% market share and having introduced Chyawanprash commercially in 1949, asserted that this advertisement had a direct and irreparable impact on its goodwill and consumer trust.
Procedural Background
The suit was filed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 seeking a permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from broadcasting the impugned advertisement and from engaging in unfair competition, disparagement, and defamation. Dabur also sought damages and removal of the advertisement from all media platforms.
The Core Dispute: The dispute revolved around whether the Patanjali advertisement, which labeled most Chyawanprash products as “Dhoka” (deception), amounted to generic disparagement of Dabur’s product and whether such an advertisement was protected under the right to commercial free speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Dabur argued that the advertisement directly attacked all Chyawanprash products and, by necessary implication, disparaged its own product, which dominates the market. Patanjali, on the other hand, claimed that the advertisement merely exercised its right to “commercial puffery” and that it neither identified nor referred to Dabur’s product, explicitly or implicitly.
Plaintiff’s Submissions
Dabur argued that it has been manufacturing Chyawanprash under a valid AYUSH license in accordance with the Rasa Tantra Saar Va Siddha Prayog Sangraha, one of the authoritative texts under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It emphasized that the recipe for Chyawanprash is a classical Ayurvedic formulation mentioned in several recognized texts and that any manufacturer following such formula cannot be called deceptive.
Dabur relied on multiple precedents: Dabur India Ltd. v. Emami Ltd., 2004 SCC OnLine Del 431 — holding that generic disparagement of a class of products affects the market leader. Dabur India Ltd. v. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd., 2004 SCC OnLine Del 718 — recognizing that even indirect disparagement of a rival product without naming it is actionable.Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. Adhikari Brothers, 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1427 — affirming that disparagement of a product class is impermissible even if generic.HUL v. Reckitt, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2133 — holding that false, misleading, or generic disparagement is not protected speech.Beiersdorf AG v. HUL, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3443 — observing that untrue statements of fact in advertisements are impermissible.
Dabur asserted that Patanjali’s use of the word “Dhoka” was a deliberate attempt to malign competitors and mislead consumers. It further relied on the earlier case Dabur India Ltd. v. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., CS(Comm) 1195/2024, where a similar advertisement had been restrained by the Delhi High Court, and where the Division Bench later permitted only fair comparisons, provided they did not deride a competitor’s product. Dabur claimed the new advertisement violated that express judicial direction.
Defendants’ Submissions: Patanjali argued that the advertisement was a legitimate exercise of its right to commercial speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as recognized in Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL, (1995) 5 SCC 139. It contended that advertisements inherently involve exaggeration or “puffery,” and the term “Dhoka” was used in a general, humorous manner, not directed at any specific brand.
Patanjali maintained that there was no mention, identification, or depiction of Dabur or any other brand, and thus no cause of action arose. The company claimed the commercial merely highlighted its own product’s superior qualities, such as containing 51 Ayurvedic herbs, which is permissible under comparative advertising.
The defendants also cited Marico Ltd. v. Adani Wilmar Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1513, and Havells India Ltd. v. Amritanshu Khaitan, 2015:DHC:2495, to argue that comparative advertisements are allowed to “play in the grey area,” provided they are not wholly false. They contended that “a reasonable viewer” would understand such language as a promotional exaggeration, not a literal accusation.
Judicial Reasoning: The Court noticed that although commercial advertisements are protected under Article 19(1)(a), this protection is not absolute and is subject to the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), especially in cases involving misleading or defamatory content. An advertiser’s right to promote its own product does not extend to defaming another’s.
The Court noted that while comparative advertising is permissible, an advertiser must not cross the line into disparagement. The distinction lies between saying “my product is better” (permissible) and “your product is bad” (impermissible).
Upon viewing the advertisement in its entirety, the Court found that the message conveyed was not limited to promoting Patanjali’s product but went further to allege that all other Chyawanprash, by implication, were “deceptive.” The use of a strong term like “Dhoka,” combined with the stature of Baba Ramdev—a public figure and perceived authority on Ayurveda—gave the message an air of authenticity and seriousness likely to mislead the public.
The Court found that this went beyond mere puffery and amounted to generic disparagement of the entire class of Chyawanprash products, adversely impacting Dabur, the market leader. The judge referred to Dabur v. Emami, HUL v. Gujarat Cooperative, and Reckitt v. Wipro Enterprises, reiterating that even indirect disparagement of a class of products is actionable.
It was further held that all manufacturers of Chyawanprash who possess valid AYUSH licenses and follow statutory formulations under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act cannot be called deceptive. Any representation suggesting otherwise was false and misleading.
Decision: The Court held that Dabur had made out a strong prima facie case for grant of interim relief. The balance of convenience lay in favour of Dabur, as the advertisement had the potential to cause irreparable damage to its reputation and goodwill. Court restrained Patanjali Ayurved Limited, Patanjali Foods Limited, and all associated entities from broadcasting, publishing, or disseminating the impugned advertisement or any similar advertisement that referred to Chyawanprash as “Dhoka” or “deceptive,” whether in electronic, print, or social media. The Court directed Patanjali to take down the advertisement from all platforms, including YouTube and Instagram, within 72 hours.
Conclusion: This judgment reinforces the boundary between permissible commercial puffery and unlawful disparagement. It underscores that freedom of commercial speech cannot be used as a shield for misleading the public or defaming competitors. While companies may extol their own products, they cannot malign others under the guise of comparative advertising. Particularly when the subject matter concerns Ayurvedic or medicinal formulations governed by statutory standards, false or misleading claims are strictly impermissible. The Court’s reasoning harmonizes constitutional free speech with statutory consumer protection, ensuring that advertising remains competitive but fair.
Case Title: Dabur India Limited Vs Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS (COMM) 1182/2025
Date of Order: 06 November 2025
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Hon’ble Judge: Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
